Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-06
UNIFORM DIVORCE LAWS.
Mr.. North's Discussion of the Subject Re.
viewed,
Chicago Inter Ocean.

Chicago Inter Ocean.
The question of uniform divorce law
for the United States, so much discussed
of late, especially urgently by Judge Ben
nett, seems to admit of some negative
argument. However great the natural
desire of morality loving people to have
adopted some equality of law to correct
the marital laXity that has become q scan
dial of magnitude in this country, there is
no wish with them to substitute one form
of hurtfuI legislation for another.
Whether, therefore, national regulation
of marriage and divorce is feasible at this
time is matter demanding serious con-
sideration.
There can be no difference of opinion
as to the broad ethical values of uniform
law, since it is impossible 10 Justify with
large sense of propriety he assumption
that locality should determine the right or
wrong of specific conduct in Individual
cases. In the political estimate, however,
the right of each state to decide for itself
what best consists with the char
acter, sentiments and customs of
It's people must, within due limitations,
be allowed. Unhappily for much
that is best in civilization, the con-
duct OF life of Well-established commu-
nifty cannot be made the governing stand
ard of a transition or adv erselY estab-
lished community; and whGi would sat
isfy some of the older and settled states
would not serve the purposes nor meet
the necessities of new and yet forming
states. In this light one may perceive
the difficulty of fixing common social
and domestic system for north and south,
for east and west.
Were there a law imposing certain in
flexible conditions upon all sections and
peoples of this strangely diversified coun-
try it would simply be disregarded and
become imperative in particular locaIi-
ties; and nothing is more disastrous to
the influence of law than statutes that
cannot be enforced. Discussing this
matter i'll the North American
Review, Thomas III. North pre-
sents some very pertinent OBJ
jections to the proposition 30 amend the
constitution to allow Congress the con-
troll of marriage and divorce. The points
are not good ideally, but they are sound
practically. His first objection, the least
significant and perhaps the most absurd,
is that the step would be long one
toward Capitalization, ''for if congress is
given control of marriage and divorce it
is hard to say what shall oe refused" tits
enough to say in answer to this that the
Institution of marriage is not q local or
limited affair, but is universal and free |
principle of general society, and however |
constituted, is q comprehensive fact, as |
binding in all other states as in the one |
where it Is consummated. We are of |
course speaking of bona tide marriages |
A principle so universally the same |
should, one would think, be a proper
matter for the concern of the federal as
against the state government.
There should at least be one precise
and positive agreement among the mar
rage laws of the several states, namely,
of a public record of the cere-
mony, whether that ceremony we're civil or
religious. A uniformity of laws in that
particular would interfere with no proper
Individual privileges, contrevene no relig-
Gus scruples, and the obligation would be
10 greater hardship in Arizona than in
Its advantages to
society are obvious. Under this
general Law the different states
night have their various forms of :
contract without sacrifice of that prime {
the seriousness of the
relation. The clothing of Con- ]
,ress with the power to establish this I
main harmony would in no wise disturb I
he equitable independence of states. &
In like manner there could be regula- {
ions of divorce laws that would not pre- {
emit the enactment of state statutes to {
over specific cases peculiar to certain 9
and yet would give uni I
ormity to the effect of divorces. Because I